Talk:Jesza

Sources

Brückner (!), Toporov and Gieysztor are not modern mythologists. Kolankiewicz was better informed than any of them regarding sources anyway. I have no idea who “Vyacheslav” is. We are talking about a modern consensus.Jezowskiperson (talk) 04:43, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Toporov is one of the most important scholars and is probably the most cited by other scholars. Also, I don't think he is outdated, he died in 2005, and Vyacheslav Ivanov, with whom he often collaborated, is still with us. Brucker is not very good source when it comes to mythology, but he is good source when it comes to criticism of sources and language. Gieysztor is not THAT outdated. And like I said before: Kolankiewicz is not big authority here, he is cultural anthropologist and can't be compared to Gieysztor, Toporov or Szyjewski. And as stated in article, authencity of Jesza is rejected by scholars who partially supported Długosz's pantheon, including Gieysztor and Toporov. Other, more modern scholars, including Szyjewski you mentioned, even ignore his existance. There is no discussion today, and modern consensus is that most of "Polish pantheon" is false, only Marzanna and possibly Dziewanna are real, with Nyja being least secure. Sławobóg (talk) 13:18, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Gieysztor died over 20 years ago. Szyjewski, the only person on your list who could be considered contemporary, was not even aware of the Koźminczyk postilla and that was four years after Kolankiewicz (a cultural anthropologist as you say) published his book so, if anything, that shows that Szyjewski was, on this question at least, an ignoramus (incidentally, I am not sure where exactly he opined one way or another as to Jesza). And are you seriously suggesting that a cultural anthropologist cannot be an authority on religion? If a patent clerk can be an authority on relativity, I think a cultural anthropologist can contribute to the history of religion (I assume you use GPS :-) ). Also, sadly, both Toporov and Ivanov - who, BTW, were not, by your standard, scholars of religion but philologists by training - are in fact very much dead. NB if you want to bring up Russian scholars, Boris Rybakov, who actually was a historian, did not question the historicity of Jesza. As an aside, I am also not sure how anyone ignoring a topic suggests anything but dilettantism? Again, what other modern scholars have analyzed the question and reject the authenticity of Jesza? --Jezowskiperson (talk) 04:11, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

You are spreading tons of nonsense. Gieysztor was quite cautious in his judgments, as evidenced by the fact that he assumed the authenticity (if you can call it that) of Dzidzilela, Dziewanna, Marzanna and Nyja. His book was republished in 2006 with commentaries by two historians: Karol Modzelewski and Leszek Pawel Słupecki. And 20 years is not a long time in this field of science.

The existence of Koźminczyk postill changes absolutely nothing. Its only feature is that it is the oldest, but it does not present any other original and valuable information which was later copied by other priests and later by Długosz. Even if a hundred new sermons with these theonyms were discovered, it changes nothing. Kolankiewicz makes excuses by claiming that the discovery of this text changes anything. Kolankiewicz himself specializes in spectacles, and he mentions the Polish deities in passing in a book devoted to something else.

I didn't say that Toporov (and Ivanov) are religious scholars, they are philologists and their work is of great importance. Do you even know what a philologist does? Toporov's work is cited by linguists as well as professional religious scholars and historians even in 2021. Toporov, of course, is cited by Szyjewski as well as Kolankiewicz. By dismissing the validity of this researcher who was critical of the sources, you ridicule yourself. In the case of deities like Jesza, the work of philologists is more important than that of religious scholars, because there is no field for religious analysis here, since Jesza is mentioned by only one source, and a philologist can assess the reliability of that source, and why someone considered the word jesza to be a deity.

On the other hand, you cite the figure of Boris Rybakov, who was considered a manipulator even during his lifetime. His unsupported theories about Rod as a chief deity or Lada as a Rozhanitsa were and are considered pseudo-scientific or at least controversial in the scientific community, but he is considered a great researcher by turboslavs and rodnover sectarians.

It is difficult to find even scholars who acknowledge his authenticity, as this pseudo-deity is simply ignored by modern scholars, such as Szyjewski. I know of absolutely no contemporary researcher who insists on its historicity. Its authenticity is rejected by Łowmiański, Bruckner, Gieysztor, Szyjewski, Urbańczyk, Toporov, Klein, and a whole host of other scholars who are critical of the Długosz's pantheon. New science finds no confirmation for his existence, and pseudo-scientific "researchers" are unable to find arguments for its existence beyond "because so". Łuczynski's (linguist) explanation is convincing. I know that Polish internet and some Polish rodnovers are in love with Długosz's pantheon but I'm not gonna put that here. Sławobóg (talk) 11:19, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, all I see here is that you wrote lots of paragraphs and did not answer my original question. So I ask you again what contemporary scholars reject Jesza? (Klein and Urbańczyk and Łowmiański, who died 40 years ago, predate Gieysztor so you’re going in the wrong direction). “New science finds no confirmation” you put next to “Even if a hundred new sermons with these theonyms were discovered, it changes nothing.” This is rather closed-minded, don’t you think? So now people copied from Koźminczyk? How do you know that? Better yet, since your views (not being a scholar of the subject) are not (no offense) relevant here, which of the authors you cite (at least the ones who were not ignorant of Koźmińczyk) believe that the Polish synodal writers copied from Koźmińczyk? You state “Jesza is mentioned by only one source” but then say even if a hundred new sermons were found it wouldn’t matter to you… presumably because, what?, they all copied from each other? Again, which scholars claim everyone else copied everything from Koźmińczyk? “And a whole host of other scholars” - Names, please?

It should be your job to give new scholars that support historicity of Jesza. Besides, Wikipedia should present mainstream views, not minor ones. And as I said before, existence of Koźminczyk's sermon doesn't change anything because that source dosn't have any new informations, it just just few years older. Also Łuczyński knowns about Koźmińczyk. Sławobóg (talk) 21:09, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

“Toporov's work is cited by linguists as well as professional religious scholars and historians even in 2021… By dismissing the validity of this researcher who was critical of the sources, you ridicule yourself.” Toporov (and Ivanov)’s work may well be “of great importance” but the fact that some of Toporov’s work is cited “even in 2021” does not speak to the matter at hand. I have nothing against Toporov but Toporov was not aware of Koźmińczyk (though you could argue that he should have been given that he chose to dabble in this topic). For all the admiration of Toporov you seem to profess now, a few days ago you didn’t seem to know that his name was “Toporov” (as opposed to “Vyacheslav” unless you were on first name terms) and then you claimed he was still alive… “Łuczynski's (linguist) explanation is convincing” - are you a linguist that is qualified to determine how good another linguist’s explanation is? Also you are being, to put it gently, inaccurate. Kolankiewicz does not mention Długosz’ pantheon “in passing”. He devotes a full chapter and then some to this discussion. And other scholars who can be considered “modern” not only do not “ignore” or “dismiss” Jesza but write about him extensively. Krzysztof Bracha comes to mind who, if memory serves, is an authority on Polish sermons (as opposed to being an authority in Russian philology such as Toporov or Ivanov).

Name of Toporov is Vladimir... Vyacheslav is name of Ivanov, and Ivanov is still alive. I typed his name instead of surname because I was in a hurry. Also I can't wait for historical evidence for Jesza by Krzysztof Bracha. ;) Sławobóg (talk) 21:09, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Then you say “In the case of deities like Jesza, the work of philologists is more important than that of religious scholars.” Ok, so now philologists are more important than religious scholars who are (as per your prior post) more important than cultural anthropologists… Specialists on sermons apparently are no authority on the same sermons, however. I hate to say it but it’s hard not to notice that the scholar that seems more important to you is the one that suits your pet theory.

Kolankiewicz is an expert on performances, not sermons. Meanwhile Bruckner "was a Polish scholar of Slavic languages and literatures (Slavistics), philologist, lexicographer and historian of literature." (and folklorist). He spent years on reading old written sources on Polish languages, including sermons (that he was discovering). You don't understand that something like source criticism exist. Sławobóg (talk) 21:09, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Instead you are being rude. One example “Do you even know what a philologist does?” Another, “you ridicule yourself.” And “I’m not gonna put that here.” Are you suggesting you own this article?Jezowskiperson (talk) 17:35, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

You invade an article, change stuff without any explanations or new sources, and this article is in my care. And then you whine about researchers who don't suit you, even though their arguments have not been refuted. Old science should be replaced by new science as long as the new science has something to say. Sławobóg (talk) 21:09, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Consult Krzysztof Bracha’s articles. Vyacheslav Ivanov is not “still alive”… I’m trying hard to cut you a break but you seem desperate for a self-own and no amount of emojis will change that 😂 And your knowledge of Ivanov’s current “status” seems on par with your knowledge of the scholars of Polish sermons. Or is he like Lenin “eternally alive.” And I have not “invaded” an article - you seem very possessive.Jezowskiperson (talk) 07:10, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I actually mixed something up, not sure why. Still, the fact that he died 4 years ago doesn't change anything, and you still didn't bring anything of value to the article. I have clarified all your points, I don't know who is being desperate here. Also, use formatting, it's hard to read. Sławobóg (talk) 07:42, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

This is the sentence that is inaccurate “However, modern scholars who are critical of Brückner's interpretations also generally reject the historicity of Jesza, and believe the deity was created through a misunderstanding of the refrains of folk songs, as interpreted by Brückner.[12]” The only person who is cited here is Gieysztor who as we established is not modern. And if you are going to cite Gieysztor then you should also cite Szafrański. And as I said Kolankiewicz and Bracha do not reject the historicity of Jesza and they’re way more modern than Gieysztor.Jezowskiperson (talk) 19:33, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Please format your wiki talk posts properly, as Slawobog asked above. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:13, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I had time to read this discussion and article a bit, and I am concerned that it is somewhat confusing. The lead states that "Contemporary researchers mostly reject the authenticity of the deity.", but the article doesn't even clearly name those who reject it. The body names many who seem to accept him as historical, and then states that "However, modern scholars who are critical of Brückner's interpretations also generally reject the historicity of Jesza", but without clearly naming those who are critical. Later there is an unreferenced sentence "Consequently, there is a consensus among scholars that the word jesza appearing in the church texts occurs in this sense and was mistakenly considered a deity." It does not state which scholars endorse this view. Later we have unreferenced editorializing "Despite strong criticism of the source material mentioning Jesza, some scholars have accepted or are accepting its historicity and have made interpretations of this theonym." Frankly, having read this article, I'd say that most scholars accept Jesza historicity, and only a few have challenged it. And I am not even sure I could name who is challenging it, but I can name half a dozen who seem to support it (again, this is based on my reading of the text). As such, I think the lead needs a rewrite - or the article does. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:31, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh, you were right. I wrote the "historicity" paragraph a bit clumsily, making it not make sense. I have corrected it. Now, scholars who refuse historicity of Jesza: Bruckner, Łowmiański, Urbańczyk, Gieysztor, Ivanov, Toporov, Łuczyński; Szyjewski just ignores him. I'll add even more, because I'm tired of these discussions. Sławobóg (talk) 22:05, 4 October 2021 (UTC)